During second half of the 20th century, Guatemala suffered a violent civil war involving many human rights violations, and three decades of chaos and terror. In 1989 mediation and negotiation processes commenced, which ultimately resulted in the seven Peace Accords of 1996. From these Peace Accords, an educational reform followed in 1998 which addressed some of the key requirements of the Peace Accords, namely the inclusion of Mayan language and culture in public education, as well as equality of education for the entire population in order to provide the possibility for the amelioration of the quality of life for the Mayan indigenous people who had been targeted and oppressed before and during the conflict.1 It is here that my research starts as this is an examination of the effects of the 1998 educational reform with respects to peace education. My research question hinges on the presence of these two elements in Guatemalan education, firstly the aforementioned educational reform, and secondly the presence of peace education. The intention of this research was to discuss the correlation between these two elements, as I inquire whether the 1998 educational reform has resulted in, or contributed to peace education.
The discussion of this correlation is not the establishment of a new theory, but instead the testing of the theory of peace education. Namely, it was based on peace education theory, that I made the preliminary assumption of the presence of peace education in Guatemala.
According to the theory all elements necessary for peace education were present, including the situation of a post armed conflict situation, education that recognized the violence that had taken place not only during the war but also the structural violence leading up to it, and an educational programme to change systematic education organized by the political power in cooperation with the oppressed.2 In practice however, this is not what I encountered during my
1 COPARE, Diseño De Reforma Educativa Runukík Jun Káká Tijonïk (Guatemala: Comisión Paritaria de Reforma Educativa (COPARE), 1998). Margriet Poppema, "Guatemala, the Peace Accords and Education: A Post-Conflict Struggle for Equal Opportunities, Cultural Recognition and Participation in Education,"
Globalisation, Societies and Education 7, no. 4 (2009).
2 Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 30th anniversary ed. ed., Pedagogía Del Oprimido (New York:
Continuum, 2000), 30.; Ian M. Harris, "Peace Education Theory," Journal of Peace Education 1, no. 1 (2004):
6.; Betty A. Reardon, Comprehensive Peace Education : Educating for Global Responsibility (New York:
Teachers College Press, 1988), 5. Leonisa Ardizzone, "Generating Peace: A Study of Nonformal Youth Organizations," Peace & Change 28, no. 3 (2003): 430.; COPARE, Diseño De Reforma Educativa Runukík Jun Káká Tijonïk.
2 field research. The reality presented on paper, one of an educational situation in which violence was recognized and addressed, where educational was agreed upon and established through cooperation and mutual respect, was far removed from the reality that I observed. In order to answer the research question, whether the 1998 educational reform resulted in or contributed to peace education, I created a research design based on the social research methods of participant observation and semi-structured interviews. Naturally, I am duly aware that I am not able to observe the conflict that took place in the past century, nor the development and implementation of the educational reform, nevertheless the manner in which it is recalled in society, the manner in which it is retold, and how this may differ within various social classes can be equally, if not more, informative especially through the medium of education. It was here, through the observations of classes at 7 different educational institutes, and by having conducted a large number of interviews, that I learned we cannot in fact speak of peace education to describe the education in Guatemala as it was at the time of my research, fall 2017.
Therefore, as I cannot establish a causal relationship between the 1998 education reform and peace education, I will address the Guatemalan education that I encountered instead, discussing the elements that oblige me to conclude the lack of said peace education despite the existence of the 1998 educational reform. These elements include, but are not limited to, observations and interviews regarding the content of classes, the manner in which they are taught, and the eventual result with which a student leaves the school, in other words, what possibilities the student has been provided with due to the education he received. In order to understand these observations, I will first give a short summary of the armed conflict that took place, and the consequences of the violence and human rights violations which last to this day.
It must be understood that in Guatemalan society as a whole, as well as in Guatemalan education, there is a continuing presence of fear, polarization and exclusion. This exclusion and polarization targets the indigenous population of Guatemala, which consists of 23 different Mayan peoples, and is executed by a small ladino elite. 3 The causes for the outbreak of the conflict, the conflict itself, and the political situation both during and since the civil war, reflect this ladino v. indigenous people dichotomy, and the decades of discrimination and violent
3The term ladino will in this research and context be understood as it is used and applied in Guatemala, that is to say, a ladino is a person with Guatemalan nationality or origin, who does not classify by birth or culture as indigenous. It should be noted that generally speaking, people who identify themselves as ladino dislike
association with the indigenous population, and often stress their European heritage and roots (however distant).
3 oppression has resulted in continuing fear. The observations and conclusions of this research cannot be understood correctly, without this background information.
Before entering into the discussion of my observations, I will shortly discuss the limited research that has already been conducted on the topic of educational reforms in Guatemala, with specific regard to the PRONADE programme, schools of which I deliberately did not include in my research, as they do not relate to the 1998 educational reform. Nevertheless PRONADE is officially an educational reform, and has been used by the government to claim progress and success with respect to the development of education, thus claiming to adhere to the Peace Accords, when this is not the case. Despite the separate nature of the PRONADE schools, and the schools affected by the 1998 educational reform, it is important for the reader to understand what the PRONADE schools are. The PRONADE programme does not only represent the power and capability of the government, it also demonstrates their political prioritization, as the programme increases government credibility with statistics indicating increased school attendance contributing to the government’s adherence to the UN millennium development goals, while it places an increased burden on the indigenous people who are meant to benefit from it. The PRONADE programmes have caused for the already limited information on education and educational development in Guatemala to be unrepresentative and skewed.
After the discussion of the necessary background information, the observations of my field research themselves as well as those of the semi-structured interviews, I will proceed with my analysis in which I address the testing of the theory of peace education, with which I started this research. I will argue that the peace education theory that is in place today, does not sufficiently account for certain influences in the peace education process. The case of Guatemala demonstrates that the mere presence of a document signed by the one in power, in this case the Guatemalan government largely constituted by the small ladino elite, does not guarantee the implementation of, or adherence to the agreement by this party. This is a matter that can be considered rather self-evident, however does not appear to be accounted for in much of the peace education theory. There is a major political factor which ultimately appears to have the main influence on whether or not peace education is established. The manner in which peace education theory is currently constructed as well as formulated, does not only fail to account for this factor, it furthermore provides for the possibility of concluding the presence or even success of peace education by the mere establishment of the presence of certain elements. It is
4 a gap between the theory and the practice of peace education that is highly problematic as it has possible harmful consequences, which will be demonstrated with this research.
Peace Education Theory
One of the most prominent physical representations of the lack of peace education, and the consequent ignorance and misunderstanding surrounding the peace and conflict paradigm, is perhaps presented in the commemorative plaque hanging above one of Guatemala’s most important roads in centre, leading to governmental institutions and the national theatre. This plaque reads: ‘guerra es inútil’. War is useless. Despite the close to endless number of things that can be said of war, lack of utility is not among them.4 Naturally its application, method, morality and effect should be examined with great scrutiny, however its employment, even when illegal and inhumane, is not without use. Peace education theory is a dynamic and continuously developing field, encompassing greatly versatile definitions of the term peace education itself. Inherent however, to almost every interpretation of the concept, is that one cannot talk of peace if one does not address conflict also. It would be as if one attempted to describe warmth without knowing cold, or light without knowing dark. It is certainly possible although it cannot be denied that this individual would be left with a substantially incomplete understanding of the concept in question. This plaque, placed in memory of the civil war that Guatemala endured during the 20th century, can be considered highly offensive because, as the plaque indicates, when war is without use, then by extension so were the sacrifices of those that participated. It might appear a small matter to find fault with, however it indicates lack of understanding, and without understanding of the peace and conflict paradigm it should come as no surprise that there is a lack of peace education also. However, before addressing the lack of peace education or the perhaps misunderstood and faulty application, we will first address here what the peace education paradigm entails.
4 Georg Simmel, Conflict ; the Web of Group-Affiliations, A Free Press Paperback (New York: The Free Press, 1964).; Rupert Smith, The Utility of Force : The Art of War in the Modern World (New York: Knopf, 2007).; D.
Scott Bennett and C. Stam Allan, "A Universal Test of an Expected Utility Theory of War," International studies quarterly (trykt utg.). 44 : 2000 : 3.; Neta C. Crawford, "What Is War Good For? Background Ideas and
Assumptions About the Legitimacy, Utility, and Costs of Offensive War," The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 18, no. 2 (2016).
5 Peace education theory is often discussed with normative descriptive terms,5 that fail to indicate concrete content or effect. Such theoriesspeak of peace education as a catalyst for social change or the bringer of justice, however, without concrete examples or demonstration of the correlation between the peace education effort and the consequent result, it is easy to classify anything as peace education when the desired outcome is reached. In this manner, there is no need to recognize unsuccessful peace education projects, as they did not result, for example, in justice or social change. The lack of social justice or change is not easily recognized as the outcome of a failed peace education programme, as the setting of a post armed conflict situation in which the peace education programme takes place, would usually provide for a context in which these social justice and social change are absent to start with. However, truly bringing about justice or social change is a matter of both great importance as well as great difficulty, which is why it is so important to recognize the programmes that fail and to identify why, in order to improve the theory.
I will first discuss some of the more concrete approaches to peace education, as presented by Ian M. Harris in his work entitled ‘Peace Education Theory’. I will continue by demonstrating the problematic nature of the more normative approach towards the definition of peace education, bearing in mind that the gap between theory and practice only grows larger when the use of nonspecific terms increases. For example, the term justice alone, can generate a large array of interpretations, where the scale ranges from justice being equal to revenge and reciprocity to justice requiring forgiveness in order to rebuild a stable society.6 Let it be noted, that I am aware of the argument that a more general description or guideline to peace education allows for a case specific application where the adaptation in order to put the theory into practice, does not require the theory itself to be altered. This argument however, did not hold up in my research as the liberal interpretation of peace education theory in Guatemala led to the abuse of the very concept that was meant to bring peace and justice, which will be discussed in
5 Zehavit Gross, "Revisiting Peace Education: Bridging Theory and Practice – International and Comparative Perspectives – Introduction," Research in Comparative and International Education 12, no. 1 (2017).; Riane Eisler and Ron Miller, "Educating for a Culture of Peace," (Portland: Ringgold Inc, 2005).; Ardizzone,
"Generating Peace: A Study of Nonformal Youth Organizations."
6 Allan D. Sobel, "What Is Justice?," Judicature 85, no. 4 (2002).; Christie Hartley, "Two Conceptions of Justice as Reciprocity.(Essay)," Social Theory and Practice 40, no. 3 (2014).; Karen A. Hegtvedt, Karen A. Hegtvedt, and Jody Clay-Warner, Justice, (Bingley: JAI Press, 2008).; Solomon Schimmel, Revenge & Justice (Oxford University Press, 2002).
6 further detail in my analysis chapter. Finally, let it be noted that the peace education theories of both the specific as well as the more normative approaches, have been chose with care from a wide array of possible articles and sources on what the theory ought to be. The reason I have chosen these specific sources, is because they represent the foundation that the majority of the newer articles appear to come back to. It might be best compared to finding the definition of for example Christianity: it has grown so much and resulted in so many churches, each with their individual interpretations, one should not simply choose one that fits their needs best, and state that this is the ‘true’ Christianity, one should go back to the source on which it was based, the Bible. I believe that the sources I have selected to represent concrete and content specific peace education theory, and normative non-specific peace education theory, do exactly this, represent the fundamental argument that the individual and separate interpretations are based on.
Before commencing with the discussion of peace education theory, let it be shortly stated that unless otherwise indicated, with the term peace I will refer to positive peace as identified by Galtung, namely as the absence of violence of all kinds.7 I will adopt this definition of the concept, and the further specifications as stated below without additional discussion as this is the not the focus of this chapter nor thesis. Galtung identifies different types of positive peace including direct positive peace, structural positive peace, and cultural positive peace. I will not refer to each separately, however refer to peace as positive peace in the accumulation of all three. These forms of positive peace include: the fulfilment of the five basic needs that of survival, well-being, freedom, identity and ecological balance, and aspects of kindness and love, freedom for repression, equity for exploitation and aspects of social society norms such as integration, solidarity and participation, the legitimation of peace in the realms of religion, law, ideology, language, education, and media.8 The presence of education is here mentioned as merely one of the aspects of peace, considering the number of aspects that must be taken into account when devising peace education in order to achieve this positive peace, we receive the first glimpses of the magnitude of such a task.
7 Johan Galtung, "Positive and Negative Peace," in Peace and Conflict Studies: A Reader, ed. Charles P. Webel and Jørgen Johansen (London: Routledge, 2012), 75.; Johan Galtung and Oslo International Peace Research Institute, "Peace by Peaceful Means," International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (SAGE, 1996). 31.
8 "Peace by Peaceful Means," 32, 197.
7
Concrete Content Specific Peace Education Theory
Ian M. Harris identifies five different types of peace education namely, international education, human rights education, development education, environmental education and conflict resolution education.9 According to Harris, every one of these types of peace education adheres to each one of the five peace education postulates. These postulates are the following:
1) It explains the roots of violence; 2) it teaches alternatives to violence; 3) it adjusts to cover different forms of violence; 4) peace itself is a process that varies according to context; 5) conflict is omnipresent.10 In his theory, Harris elaborates that the types of peace education are not mutually exclusive, and states clearly that, for example environmental education cannot substitute conflict resolution education. He explains that each of these subjects can be considered peace education because each in its own way, adheres to the aforementioned postulates. In an ideal situation, if all five forms of peace education, as indicated by Harris, were to be taught simultaneously and in a complementary manner, the product of such education would be an individual with a close understanding of the concepts of peace and conflict. Bearing in mind that all types of education being taught also means all postulates are covered, one would hypothetically not only understand the origin of the conflict, it would know an alternative solution to the violence that took place, understand the nature of the violence in question, understand the peace in place is specific to its situation and not universal, and that conflict, nevertheless, remains omnipresent.
This ideal education, with the expected result of a full understanding of the peace and conflict paradigm is, by all means, not a given, even though the theory might appear functional and effective at first sight. Although I will not argue that Harris’ theory does not cover all the essential elements to peace education, it is still not perfect. Despite it being both specific enough to generate a general direction for the curriculum, and sufficiently non-descript to allow for national or cultural interpretation of the concept to be incorporated in the lessons, it operates on a false premise. It speaks of developing, among other things, critical thought, in the generation that is subjected to peace education.11 However, those who are to developed the program, and teach the next generation are more often than not, underqualified for such a function. As Harris explains, grass roots movements are promoted over top-down development
9 Harris, "Peace Education Theory," 6.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid., 17.
8 strategies in peace education,12 this means that even when those involved in such movements are teachers, it is unlikely that they have had examples of peace education theory in their educational trajectory or upbringing. I am aware that top-down development strategies are not
8 strategies in peace education,12 this means that even when those involved in such movements are teachers, it is unlikely that they have had examples of peace education theory in their educational trajectory or upbringing. I am aware that top-down development strategies are not